Oral Answers to Questions
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Prime Minister’s plan for change sets out our ambitious but achievable target for clean power by 2030. We have already announced £300 million for offshore wind supply chains, in addition to the significant uplift for the clean industry bonus scheme. These measures support clean energy and growth in the UK’s industrial heartlands, and further details will be set out at the spending review.
Pippa Heylings
Successive Governments have failed to deliver a fair energy transition for workers and communities. We have seen the devastating closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, and now we are seeing uncertainty around the gas storage facility off the east coast. Just seven out of 87 offshore oil and gas companies are planning to invest anything in renewable energy by 2030, so the Government must be the ones in the driving seat to ensure that our North sea oil and gas workers do not meet the same fate. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on new financial support to create recruitment and retention pathways for workers moving into the clean energy pathway?
Darren Jones
Our skilled workforce in the oil and gas industry will be important for the continued role of oil and gas in the energy mix, but also for the transition to renewable and net zero energy, as the hon. Lady has pointed out. That is why we have invested significant sums of money in carbon capture and storage, working with exactly those companies, and we will set out details of further support for the industry at the spending review in the coming months.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the £200 million commitment to Grangemouth and clean energy through the national wealth fund, and I also welcome the Department’s confirmation to me recently that that money will not be fettered exclusively to the Project Willow proposals. The need for investment is urgent, with jobs lost and the broader economic impacts impending. We need to move further and faster, so what conversations are Treasury Ministers having with their Cabinet colleagues to encourage them to act on the Project Willow policy recommendations and deliver investment in Grangemouth?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a champion for his constituency and for industry. As he has alluded to, the Government have already made hundreds of millions of pounds available through the national wealth fund for the company in question. We are working to ensure a just transition, harbouring the skills of people in Scotland and across the country. We are now in active discussions as the spending review comes to an end, and we will be able to present more detail to the House on 11 June.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Climate Change Committee says that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, but rather than maximise North sea production, the Government are taxing it out of existence. Harbour Energy has just announced hundreds of job losses as a result of the Chancellor’s 78% windfall tax. Instead of costly transition imports, will Ministers use the spending review to think again and focus on an energy policy that will deliver cheaper and cleaner energy that is affordable for consumers and businesses?
Darren Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. That is why we are investing in home-grown secure energy, including renewables, nuclear and other forms of energy. In yesterday’s UK-EU trade deal—which I am sure the shadow Minister would like to welcome—we have enhanced our arrangements with the European Union on electricity trading, enabling us to export energy we produce in the UK to the European Union and vice versa. That will ensure energy security, as well as good jobs and good businesses in the energy sector, for decades to come.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Treasury has reformed the spending review process to ensure that it facilitates genuine collaboration across Departments. As part of this spending review, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I have met Secretaries of State multilaterally in mission clusters, which have brought together Departments to agree cross-departmental priorities, increase transparency, reduce duplication and align spending with mission delivery across Whitehall, while learning every possible lesson from the failure of the Conservatives to ensure that it is never repeated ever again.
Peter Prinsley
Some 9,000 UK medical graduates compete with 15,000 overseas graduates for postgraduate training, meaning that many of our own graduates simply cannot progress into higher professional training, and either go abroad themselves or leave medicine. Does the Minister agree that the Treasury has a crucial role to co-ordinate spending on medical university education by the Department for Education and on postgraduate training by the Department of Health and Social Care, so as to ensure that public money spent on medical student education is not wasted?
Darren Jones
The Government are committed to training the staff the NHS needs as part of our 10-year plan. International staff clearly play an important role in the mix of staff that we have, but we also want to create opportunities for people across the country to work in our national health service. That is why, thanks to changes this Government have made, we have already been able to recruit more than 1,500 additional GPs since October who would otherwise not have been able to seek that type of employment.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
While discussing the spending review, will the Treasury get the Agriculture Secretary and the Energy Secretary together in the same room, and make sure that agriculture receives the funding it needs and that energy is not allowed to charge agriculture, effectively, for its loss of income? In other words, will the Chancellor ensure we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Darren Jones
A meeting of that nature has already taken place as part of our mission-led approach to Government. We continue to engage with the Departments for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on these issues, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests—it is exactly what we mean when we talk about cross-departmental collaboration. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, further details will be set out in the spending review in due course.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the official opening of the Charles Hammond berth. As she knows, we set up Great British Energy in Scotland, bringing forward £300 million of investment ahead of the spending review to secure jobs and supply chains. Funding for the Port of Cromarty Firth, announced in March, is expected to support up to 1,000 highly skilled jobs, while our uplift to the clean energy bonus will support offshore wind supply chains across the country. That is yet another example of the Government working with business and of a Labour Government delivering for the people of Scotland.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP, with an ambition to go further to 3% in the next Parliament when economic and fiscal conditions allow. As part of that increase in spending, we are making sure that UK companies and UK workers get the benefit, including in places such as Wolverhampton, through apprenticeships, good jobs and good growth.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has suffered a real-terms funding cut, partly because the majority of firefighters are on call so the employer national insurance contributions were not sufficiently compensated. Will Ministers commit to reviewing the funding formula to fit the needs of communities, and to undertaking a local impact assessment on the effect of the funding cuts on public and firefighter safety?
Darren Jones
The Government have already increased NHS spending by £22.6 billion, police funding by £1.1 billion, and fire and rescue authority funding by £65.5 million. Further spending will be set out in the June spending review, but this is another example of a Labour Government delivering on the promise of change.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
To alleviate grinding penury for millions of people, the Chancellor could introduce an annual wealth tax on multimillionaires, which would raise approximately £24 billion per annum, yet she refuses to entertain the idea and considers cuts to welfare acceptable. Why do “tough political choices” always seem to impact the most vulnerable?
Treasury
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The current budget was last in surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position.
[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 562.]
Written correction submitted by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):
Darren Jones
As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The current budget was last in sustained surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position.
Ukraine: Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Second Tranche Disbursal
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
On 1 March 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her Ukrainian counterpart, Minister Marchenko, signed a £2.26 billion ($3 billion) loan agreement under the G7 extraordinary revenue acceleration loans for Ukraine scheme. The Government are disbursing their contribution to this scheme in three equal tranches over three fiscal years. The first tranche of £752 million was paid to Ukraine on 6 March 2025, with the second tranche paid on 14 April 2025.
The G7 ERA initiative is set to collectively provide approximately $50 billion in loans to Ukraine. This crucial funding will be repaid using future flows of extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, which are primarily held within the EU.
Given the urgent needs of Ukraine and the significant public interest in Ukraine’s defence of its territory, as well as the broader security of Europe and the UK, there is insufficient time to wait for the usual parliamentary process to conclude to allow for the second tranche of UK support under this scheme to be distributed to Ukraine. The final tranche, payable in the next financial year, will be funded in the usual way through the estimates process.
Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £752,667,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a main estimate for His Majesty’s Treasury. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £752,667,000 has been met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.
[HCWS595]
Oral Answers to Questions
Darren Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The growth mission is the central mission of this Government. At the Budget, we delivered a £1.1 billion cash increase to the transport budget for 2025-26 compared with 2024-25, representing a 1.5% real-terms increase. We will set out further spending plans for transport in June.
Sadik Al-Hassan
What value does my right hon. Friend expect that the recently announced and much-anticipated Portishead and Pill railway line will add to the local economy of my constituency of North Somerset?
Darren Jones
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning on this issue. As I represent the neighbouring constituency, I declare that the project may have some indirect benefit for my constituents. I can confirm to the House that the project supports regional and national strategic objectives. The West of England is the most productive city region outside of London, and it is set to continue to grow. An efficient and reliable rail link between Bristol and Portishead will support a range of large and small sites for housing and employment across the region, halving journey times and opening a wide range of job and leisure opportunities for the residents of North Somerset.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
If steel production ceases or is curtailed at the Scunthorpe steelworks, there will be a massive impact on the wider economy in northern Lincolnshire. Can the Minister give an assurance that contingency plans, including improvements to transport infrastructure, are in place should the worst happen?
Darren Jones
We recognise how important this issue is for the hon. Member’s constituency, the region and, indeed, the national economy. My ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade are in discussions on this particular issue, but in our infrastructure strategy we are considering, as he would expect, the best value for aligning investments between housing, rail, energy and other types of infrastructure to deliver growth for everyone, in every region of the country.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
We know that the Energy Secretary is against airport expansion unless it is in Doncaster, and we know that many Labour MPs are against airport expansion unless it is in Pakistan. To be fair, at least the Chancellor wants airport expansion actually in this country, but at the same time she is jacking up air passenger duty by as much as 16%. Only this Chancellor could be pro-airport, but anti-passenger. Labour’s Climate Change Committee wants to see air passenger numbers fall by 2030, so I ask the Minister: does he?
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Liverpool City Region combined authority will benefit from the £900 million UK shared prosperity fund, which will allow authorities to invest in local communities such as my hon. Friend’s. From the start of 2026-27, her combined authority will receive a single flexible pot through its integrated settlement. Integrated settlements will allow local leaders across the UK to deliver important projects for their areas, including high streets. To fulfil our manifesto pledge, we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties—including those on high streets—from 2026-27.
Kim Johnson
Everton, in my constituency, is the most deprived area in the country, and residents have received a double blow as a result of the imminent closure of Lloyds Bank and the planned closure of the Crown post office, which will have a devastating impact on residents and businesses alike. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss those closures and the desperate need for a banking hub in the area?
Darren Jones
As every constituency MP will know, the closure of banking services on our high streets is always a difficult decision. The Government are committed to championing access by rolling out banking hubs across the country. We are committed to delivering 350 of those hubs, and 220 have already been announced. The closure of the post office that my hon. Friend mentions will trigger a further cash access assessment for her constituency. I would be pleased to arrange a meeting for her with the relevant Minister to look at the options for her constituency.
Jim Shannon
The Minister’s response is key. He is right to highlight the issues, whether they are in Liverpool, Everton, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast or Strangford. In Northern Ireland, we have made the most of over-the-shops apartment conversions as opportunities for housing. Does the Minister agree that the possibilities for the regeneration of high streets and town centres also include housing opportunities?
Darren Jones
We have a shared ambition to ensure that our high streets are thriving communities for the people who live, shop or work there. We are delivering an integrated settlement for combined authority mayors in England, and have delivered a real-terms increase in funding for the Northern Ireland Executive—the largest since devolution began—to invest in exactly those types of local projects.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
To follow on from what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, high streets up and down the land, be they in Liverpool Riverside, St Albans or anywhere else, have just been hit with the double whammy of the jobs tax and higher business rates bills. What steps are Ministers taking to prevent an epidemic of boarded-up shop fronts in the next 12 months, before the new rate comes in next year?
Darren Jones
As I have informed the House already, we are committed to supporting independent businesses and retailers on the high street. The change to employer national insurance contributions was designed to support smaller businesses in our country; over 50% of businesses will pay the same national insurance as before, or less than they did under the previous regime. The hon. Lady alluded to the fact that we are bringing forward permanent deductions in business rate taxation for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, which will be important for the long-term sustainability of the businesses she mentions.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Mr Speaker, you shocked me by moving to topical questions so quickly, but I have now found my page and am ready to answer them.
Darren Jones
From ferries to the National Care Service, we have seen failure after failure from the SNP in Scotland, including a track record of waste. In contrast, this Labour Government are tackling waste and investing in frontline services such as our national health service, which has seen waiting lists fall for each of the past five months in England. We hope that the people of Scotland will soon have the opportunity to experience such a transformation.
Douglas McAllister
The Chancellor set out in the spring statement a clear plan to drive better value for taxpayers, including through the transformation fund, which will transform frontline delivery while making savings in the long term. Does he agree that that is in stark contrast to the SNP Scottish Government’s record of waste?
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, we have given the Scottish Government the largest increase in spending since devolution began. The people of Scotland expect that money to be spent well, which we are doing in England by transforming public services and improving the national health service. However, given that SNP Members are not present in the Chamber today, the people of Scotland need to know that they will have to elect a Labour Government in Scotland later next year for that to happen.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
It was obvious to many before the emergency Budget that the President of the United States was going to be slapping tariffs on our exports. May I therefore ask the Chancellor why it was that she came forward at the emergency Budget with a recklessly slender slither of headroom—the same headroom that she had at the time of the autumn Budget, which proved then to be entirely inadequate. She blew that headroom and more due to her disastrous economic choices.
Darren Jones
I am sorry to disappoint the shadow Chancellor, but I am afraid that, because of the ordering of questions, he is stuck with me. To answer his question, he will have seen at the Budget that we increased the fiscal headroom back to our agreement of £9.9 billion, which was more than the headroom that we inherited from the Conservative party. The key difference is that this is a Government who take economic and political stability seriously, because when a Government lose control of the economy, they lose control of family finances and, ultimately, end up in opposition.
Mr Speaker
Just to correct the record, the Order Paper has not changed at all in topicals.
Mel Stride
You are quite right about that, Mr Speaker, as you are about everything. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong when he says that he inherited less headroom than was the case at the autumn Budget. He inherited, on the current Budget, £23 billion, and he took it down to £9.9 billion to be precise. He also loosened the fiscal targets, which is why he is not underwater already on the targets that we had when we were in government.
May I ask him this: the fiscal targets are looking like they will be under a great deal of pressure come the autumn. There is a great deal of speculation and uncertainty among businesses as to whether this will lead to tax increases. Can he take away that uncertainty now, particularly given the tariffs and all the uncertainty that is vested in that, to make it clear at that Dispatch Box that there will be no further increases in taxation on businesses this Parliament?
Darren Jones
My apologies, Mr Speaker. It was our ordering that caused the problem, not the ordering of questions in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that tight decisions were taken at the Budget, but we have been very clear that we are working hand in glove with businesses to be able to bring growth back to the economy and to ensure that investment—private sector and public sector—is coming forward. As he will know, from his time of swimming underwater, this Government are taking a different approach to fiscal discipline, and he should welcome that.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Darren Jones
Yes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing jobs and businesses in her constituency. As she knows, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have confirmed that defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and that a minimum of 10% of the Ministry of Defence equipment budget will now be spent on novel technologies such as drones and artificial intelligence, which will create highly skilled jobs and drive benefits to the wider economy, including in her constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member knows that we are supporting airport expansion alongside investment in things like sustainable aviation fuel to be able to reduce carbon emissions from long-haul flights as well as supporting investment into decarbonised surface transport, to help people get around the country and to their airports. Opposition Members might want to welcome investment into this country, as opposed to talking it down.
Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Will the Minister introduce a 12-month delay to the incoming change in taxation for double-cab pick-up trucks? The manufacturers and their commercial customers feel that they have had insufficient time to adjust to the new changes this month. Can he share with us any impact assessment work carried out on the reclassification of double-cab pick-ups and what effect it would have on the sector in Britain?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The last Government left 4.5 million children in poverty, but, like many colleagues, I am alarmed that the impact assessment of the spring statement suggests that that number will rise, not fall. Will the Minister tell me when we can expect the results of the child poverty taskforce? Will they be delivered in time to influence decisions in the spending review?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to reducing child poverty and that we will be bringing forward a child poverty strategy later this year. It will look at levers that support households to increase their income, such as supporting parents into secure employment, supporting progression in the labour market and considering social security reforms. I confirm that the work of the taskforce is feeding into the spending review.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Chancellor talked earlier about the Government’s response to the new US trade policy, but what are the Government doing about China’s abuse of the world trade system? In particular, what will they do to challenge China’s status as a developing country at the World Trade Organisation? That is the means by which China dodges so many of the rules imposed on countries such as Britain and others in the west.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Local businesses have huge potential to create local growth in our community. It was fantastic to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury visiting Derby South earlier this year and engaging with business leaders. Does the Minister agree that continued engagement with business leaders is absolutely key to building the business confidence that we so desperately need and which was shattered by the previous Government?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the invitation to join him in his constituency. I very much enjoyed the regional reception with business leaders, as I have done in every region and nation across the country during the spending review. We will continue to work hand in glove with them to unlock investment, create jobs and create growth for everybody, across the whole country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Earlier, when the Chancellor was talking about the impact of tariffs, she pledged that the Government would act in our national interest. How can it be in the whole national interest, so long as the trade laws governing Northern Ireland are not the trade laws of the UK but those of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU?
Devolved Government Funding 2024-25
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
In addition to changes in devolved Government funding at supplementary estimates 2024-25, and in line with the statement of funding policy, the Welsh Government have chosen to draw down £125.000 million in resource DEL (excluding depreciation) and £50.000 million in capital DEL (general) from the Wales reserve in 2024-25. The Welsh Government have also chosen to switch £202.000 million from resource DEL (excluding depreciation) to capital DEL (general). These changes are in line with the funding arrangements set out in the Welsh Government’s fiscal framework. £million Welsh Government Northern Ireland Executive Resource DEL excluding depreciation 17,154.011 15,657.049 Capital DEL (general) 3,278.160 1,959.532 Capital DEL (financial transactions) 165.344 90.513 Total DEL 20,597.515 17,707.094
There have been further changes to devolved Government funding due to the application of the Barnett formula—changes that were processed after the finalisation of supplementary estimates 2024-25. These have resulted in a change of £0.019 million CDEL (general) for the Welsh Government and £0.812 million CDEL (general) for the Northern Ireland Executive in 2024-25. The Scottish Government will carry forward their £1.975 million CDEL (general) increase to 2025-26 with no change to their funding for 2024-25.
The Welsh Government will also return £2.000 million CDEL (general) funding for the north Wales growth deal in 2024-25 and £7.000 million CDEL (general) funding for the construction of border control posts. This is to ensure the profile of funding better reflects the delivery of the deal and of border control post construction.
Revised 2024-25 funding is as follows:
[HCWS561]
Annual European Union Finances Statement
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I am today laying before Parliament “The European Union Finances Statement 2024 on the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement” (CP 1296). This is an annual publication; this year’s edition covers the period from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024. This publication is available on gov.uk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/eu-annual-statement
The publication sets out the Government’s updated estimate of the financial settlement on withdrawal from the EU. HM Treasury estimates that the current total net value of the financial settlement is £30.7 billion since the UK ceased to be an EU member state in February 2020. Of this, £25 billion has been paid up to the end of December 2024, and the forecast of future outstanding net liabilities is £5.7 billion.
[HCWS536]
Performance Review of Digital Spend
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government are committed to the digital transformation of public services and modernising the state. Successful digital transformation will improve user experience, help target support to the people who need it, and ensure sustainable public finances.
While to date, digital transformation has been incremental and lacked ministerial leadership, the Government’s comprehensive “Performance Review of Digital Spend” marks a step change, seeking to understand what barriers to reform are created by Government themselves and what steps can be taken to remove those barriers. This review was led jointly by HM Treasury and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The review highlighted significant challenges in how digital projects are funded, managed and tracked. Current processes can be overly complex for many digital initiatives and experimental technologies, delaying decision-making and service delivery. There is often insufficient funding for service maintenance and improvement, and financial pressures can mean that short-term savings are prioritised over long-term digital investments.
Many Departments face the dual burden of managing growing reliance on legacy IT systems while being constrained by funding models that prioritise the control of inputs rather than long-term strategic impact and delivery against outcomes. The absence of agreed-upon metrics to measure project outcomes also limits the ability to demonstrate value for money in digital spending.
The review also found that current approaches to policymaking can inadvertently narrow delivery choices early, limiting the range of options considered during investment appraisals and preventing a full exploration of potential solutions. Furthermore, misunderstood guidance and the unsuitable application of appraisal methods by Departments risks hindering digital investment.
The Government will take forward a number of important reforms to address these issues built on three key pillars:
testing alternative funding mechanisms;
enhanced training and guidance; and
improved outcomes metrics and evaluation.
Four new funding mechanisms, which focus on improving funding processes for innovative technologies such as AI, live digital services, portfolios and risk reduction respectively will be tested and scaled. Further details of each of these funding mechanisms is set out in the report. The Government’s aim is to test, iterate and institutionalise different approaches to both funding and evaluation of digital spend with a strong focus on demonstrating progress against outcome metrics in exchange for faster and more agile funding arrangements.
Targeted training for Departments and teams involved in the approvals process will focus on building better evidenced bids for spending reviews and on how to use agile funding approaches. New Green Book supplementary guidance for digital will be published to help Departments provide better evidence proposals. The Government are also taking a digital first approach to spending decisions in spending review 2025 to ensure that strategic judgements about the UK Government’s digital needs inform departmental allocations.
There will also be a strong focus on developing new and improved outcome metrics and robust evaluation plans for major digital programmes. These efforts will be enabled by a proactive support package provided by the Government Digital Service (GDS), National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), the Evaluation Task Force (ETF) and HM Treasury. Finally, strategic digital, data and technology priorities for new business case development will be agreed by Ministers at least six months before future spending reviews, to help ensure that decisions can be made on the basis of a more robust evidence base.
The report has been published on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-review-of-digital-spend and I have deposited a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
[HCWS511]
Oral Answers to Questions
Darren Jones Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The growth mission is the central mission of this Government, and transport is an important enabler of that growth. The spending review delivered a £1.1 billion cash increase to the transport budget in 2025-26 compared with 2024-25, representing 1.5% real-terms growth with record spending. Further announcements will be made in the spending review.
Kevin Bonavia
In my constituency, Stevenage borough council is working to secure jobs and opportunity, with town centre regeneration under way and over 590 council homes delivered, but outdated infrastructure is holding back growth. Businesses have been clear with me that upgrading Stevenage station gateway would unlock growth, with the prospect of 15,000 jobs being delivered and a £1.5 billion benefit to the economy each year. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can make the most of this opportunity to unlock economic growth through more infrastructure investment?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that investing in infrastructure will enable growth in cities, towns and villages across the whole of our United Kingdom. We will set out further detail alongside the spending review in our 10-year infrastructure strategy in June. No doubt Stevenage, being sited between London and the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, will benefit enormously from announcements already made, but decisions on specific schemes will be taken by the Department for Transport following the spending review.
Dave Robertson
The midlands rail hub project would represent major investment in rail infrastructure across the west midlands. Crucially, it would mean more frequent trains on the cross-city line, which serves Lichfield. Before the pandemic, that was the busiest commuter line in the country outside London. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that more trains will be coming on this line, and coming soon?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong champion for his constituency, for raising this rail project. In relation to such projects, the case that he has made will be an important part of our consideration in the months ahead as part of the spending review. I will arrange for him to meet the appropriate Transport Minister as we make those considerations.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The great university cities of York and Hull are unusual in that they do not have a direct rail line between them. The whole region—Labour MPs, Liberal Democrat councillors, Conservatives—is united in believing that reopening the Beverley to York line, so that the two great minsters of Hull and York can be reconnected, would bring economic growth and a brighter future for the area. Will the Minister agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss this project and how it could help unlock the growth that we all seek across the House?
Darren Jones
I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade his party, when in government for 14 years, to open that line. I can reassure him that this Government take rail infrastructure seriously, and I will happily consider any detail that he wishes to write to me about.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Economic growth through infrastructure development could be helped in Scotland and Northern Ireland with more money going to Cairnryan port and the road infrastructure to it. Allied to that, any help that the Department, the Minister and the Chancellor could give in resolving EU-related trading issues would considerably help Northern Ireland business as well as Scottish business.
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the Government have entered negotiations with our counterparts in the European Commission to improve trade between the UK and the European Union. I had a great meeting to discuss these issues last week in Cardiff with Finance Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive as well as from Scotland and Wales, and noted that we have given a record-breaking increase in funding to the devolved Governments, so that they can get on with such projects, working in partnership with us where we still have responsibility.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
At autumn Budget 2024, we set out the first major steps in our approach to regional growth through devolution, investment and reform. The January growth speech regional investment package built on that. We have made clear the Government’s focus on attracting inward investment across the country and to investing in infrastructure needed to support cities and regions to grow. We have made it clear that the importance of investing in major city regions across the UK will play an important part in that endeavour. For example, if we improve the productivity gap in Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, we estimate we can deliver an extra £33 billion in economic output.
Graham Stringer
Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was nearly as shocked when you called me as I was when listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio 4 talking about economic growth. She said there had not been a new runway built in this country since 1945. Manchester airport would be very surprised to hear that, because its new runway has been operating for nearly 25 years. I was shocked by that but not really surprised, because I think many officials in the Treasury who advise her show a startling ignorance of the English regions, and that leads to a certain prejudice in the formula they use to calculate whether a scheme should go ahead. Can the Minister and the rest of the Treasury team provide coaches to send Treasury officials around the English regions to talk to people who know about growth? Secondly, will he look at the formulas that decide where economic growth happens, which are biased against the regions?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions; I will do my best to answer them. I can confirm that Treasury officials routinely engage with local and regional officials across the country, including frequently in Manchester with Mayor Burnham and his team. I would point my hon. Friend gently to some of the announcements made by the Chancellor, including support for the Old Trafford development in Manchester. I congratulate the operators of Manchester airport on running a successful business, which we will continue to support in the normal way.
Michelle Scrogham
At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a range of support measures for small businesses, including vital support for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. Will the Minister confirm the measures being taken to support the independent and important craft brewing and distillery sector in Cumbria?
Darren Jones
As the House has already heard today from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, we have made permanent decisions to give businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors certainty that their discounts will apply to business rates relief for the long term, not just on a one-year rolling temporary basis, as was the case for years under the previous Government. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) that the likes of Shed One gin, Wolftown and Kin vodka in Cumbria will benefit enormously from the Government’s policy. I look forward to visiting those establishments with her in due course.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Golden Valley development in Cheltenham will bring significant growth to the west. It will also back our national security by supporting GCHQ. Now that the Chancellor has approved an extra 0.1% of defence spending for intelligence and cyber, will she work with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Cabinet Office to agree more funding for this nationally significant development? If the defence point is not good enough, we could point out that the development will unlock a lot of nice new houses too.
Darren Jones
I visited Airbus in Newport last week to look at some of the advanced technologies we have in this space. I was told about the important connections between Newport and the hon. Gentleman’s region, with GCHQ and the industrial impact that it has on the supply chain in the UK. The increased spending on defence announced by the Prime Minister will have a significant, positive impact for businesses such as those and for his region. We look forward to setting out further details of that spending in the spending review.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Marches region, of which North Shropshire is a significant part, is held back by the A483 road running between Llanymynech and Oswestry, which is very dangerous. There are frequent crashes and hold-ups on it, which both hinders local growth and, obviously, is a danger to life for people living in the area. Will the Minister work with his colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure that if we cannot get a bypass, we at least get vital improvements on that road?
Darren Jones
I can commit to working with DFT colleagues on projects such as that and others around the country as we make decisions in the upcoming spending review. I would make an observation that it is not just about the decisions on spending; there have been problems in the past where decisions have been made and U-turned, and then made and U-turned again. That is difficult for the supply chain and difficult for investors and local communities. In our multi-year capital budgets and our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which are coming in the months ahead, we will give stability to the UK economy so that we can get on and deliver projects such as the one the hon. Lady mentions.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Chancellor has lauded the new National Wealth Fund as a key part of the Government’s regional growth ambitions. The trouble is, it is not actually new; it is just the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new colour scheme and £7 billion it did not need. The Prime Minister announced at a recent Labour party political conference that he will allocate £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for Grangemouth, but it is supposed to be operationally independent. Will the Minister therefore confirm that that is still the case and that the full independent investment process was followed? Will he also confirm that the unexpected resignation of the National Wealth Fund CEO just days before that announcement is not connected?
Darren Jones
I find it odd that Members on the Conservative Benches do not welcome an additional £7 billion of investment into our economy; it is rather a testament to their poor performance on investment over many years in government. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, I can confirm that each of the business cases for Grangemouth will have to go through the normal process for sign off, and that John Flint leaving the National Wealth Fund is not in any way connected to the decisions taken by this Government. We look forward to appointing his successor in due course.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
At Budget, the Government announced major steps towards delivering a once-in-a-generation increase in social housing, including a £500 million boost to the affordable homes programme, increasing annual spend to £3.1 billion—the biggest annual budget for affordable housing in more than a decade. Earlier this month, the Government also announced an additional £350 million to fund affordable homes. That is the difference a Labour Government can make to people across the country waiting desperately for secure housing. Further investment decisions will be set out at phase 2 of the spending review.
Cat Smith
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Lancaster Guardian for its recent investigative report into the reality for many families living in temporary accommodation in the Lancaster district? That is paired with a frustration I hear from local house building developers over delays in the planning process in the district. What more does the Minister think can happen in Lancaster to ensure that families in the district actually have secure housing?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that we are doing everything possible in this place to streamline and improve planning legislation and planning processes. We are providing clear signals to everybody across the country that we need to build and build rapidly, not least to meet our housing target. Local councils play an important role in this process, as they make decisions on local developments. I understand that in Lancaster city council she has had some struggles with members of the Green party, who are becoming blockers as opposed to builders. I say to them and to people across the country that they need to get behind the build agenda, because that is what the British people voted for.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
To what extent is the Chancellor concerned about multiple potential breaches by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of its charter since it issued Spotlight 63, which impacts rental housing supply and is causing real concerns among my constituents—both landlords and tenants? Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss this matter?
Darren Jones
I am afraid that I have no idea what the answer is, but if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I shall make sure that he gets an answer.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government are committed to spending taxpayers’ money efficiently. At the autumn Budget, we launched the Office for Value for Money to realise benefits from every pound of public spending. Through phase 1 of the spending review, Departments were set a 2% productivity, efficiency and savings target to ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is well spent. The next phase of the spending review has gone further. I have asked each Department to conduct a line-by-line review of existing day-to-day budgets to identify where spending is no longer aligned with this Government’s priority or is poor value for money.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the Minister for his answer. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I see on a weekly basis the waste that existed under the previous Government, from the billions spent on badly procured covid contracts to a Rwanda scheme that delivered nothing. What steps will the Minister be taking to make sure that we deal not only with value for money for the taxpayer, but the legacy of waste under the previous Government?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but that is their legacy. Not once in 17 years was a zero-based review done, not once did former Conservative Ministers require their Departments to go line-by-line through their budgets, and not once did they think that the responsible thing to do was to go through to check how every pound of taxpayers’ money was spent. Instead, there was an argument each year: how much more money am I going to get; how much more borrowing will there be to pay for these bills; and how many more promises am I going to make that I know I will not deliver. The British people were sick to death of that approach to politics, and this Government are taking a fundamentally different approach.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The adoption and special guardianship support fund provides excellent value for money in Mid Sussex for Beacon House, which is a specialist mental health and trauma clinic. Unfortunately, however, the clinic’s financial future is looking uncertain. Does the Minister agree that investing in mental health is always a good idea when it comes to getting people back to work and well again and able to contribute to society? Will the Minister work with the Department for Education to secure future funding for this vital service?
Darren Jones
I agree entirely that mental health services are in desperate need of investment and support across the country. The evidence is very clear that there are, for example, too many people out of work who would be like to be in work, but who are waiting at home unwell and unable to receive the support and services that they need and deserve. The Health Secretary is working hard on that at the moment. We are going into the spending review negotiations over the coming weeks and months, and we will set out further detail in due course. I look forward to being able to provide more information specifically as we go through that process.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Improving public sector productivity was the No.1 ask of Institute of Directors’ businesses trying to weather Storm Rachel, but under Labour, public sector productivity has fallen further behind pre-pandemic levels. The number of civil servants working from home has gone up and, shockingly, as The Daily Telegraph has found, thousands of civil servants are being signed off to work from abroad. Therefore, whether it is on civil servants working from their bedrooms or from Benidorm, or on other blockers of public sector productivity, what has the Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually done in his last eight months in office, or is he too comfortable with what the Prime Minister calls
“the tepid bath of managed decline”?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. My No. 1 ask is that he has another go at making better jokes in future. To answer the substance of his question, I agree with him that the state is not productive enough on a whole range of issues. He talks about civil service headcount, about Government offices and locations, and about working conditions. He could also talk about digital transformation. Frankly, we have an enormous amount of work to do, which will become evident through our spending review. It is something that is being taken very seriously not just by the Treasury, but from the Prime Minister downwards. I look forward to his reflecting on what we suggest is the answer to 14 years of failure from his party when it was in government.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. Scotland will play an important role. At the autumn Budget we announced that the Scottish Government will be provided with £47.7 billion in its 2025-26 settlement—the largest in real terms in the history of devolution. We also confirmed £130 million of targeted funding, including for city and growth deals.
Elaine Stewart
In Scotland, we have seen almost two decades of wasteful spending while public services get worse. Does the Minister agree that good public services are essential to economic growth, and that Scottish taxpayers are not getting good value for money under the SNP Government?
Darren Jones
On my recent visit to Scotland I heard just that. The people of Scotland deserve the same approach that the people of England are getting from this Government, who have stability and economic growth as their mission and who are getting a grip of public finances after years of failure. Quite frankly, we have given the Scottish Government the money, and they now need to get on with the job. If they cannot, they need to move out of the way.
Tracy Gilbert
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree on the importance of the Scotch whisky industry. Support for the industry starts at home by attracting investment, including at the Port of Leith distillery in my constituency, which is producing single malt Scotch whisky, attracting tourists and showcasing the best of Scottish hospitality. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the industry’s concerns about the watering down of the definition of single malt, which will have an impact on investment and growth. Will he therefore work with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that no change is made to the definition of single malt that would undermine the Scottish success story and investment in the Scottish whisky industry?
Darren Jones
Scotch whisky is a proud British brand and export, and this Government will always support the industry. I have checked with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I can confirm that we will not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you will have seen the film “Skyfall”, in which James Bond and M travel up the A9. But the A9 is a killer road, and we have had a litany of broken promises from the SNP Government. That is hardly conducive to economic growth in Scotland.
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his tour of the scenic A9 and for telling us the importance of that road to Scotland. I am sure that I support what would have been his question. The Scottish National party Government in Scotland ought to take infrastructure seriously, as we are doing here in the UK Government.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
We can listen to the braying of Labour MPs from Scotland or we can look at the fact that the Scottish economy grew 12% more than the UK economy in 2024. That is because of the SNP Scottish Government’s forensic focus on making Scotland the most attractive place in the UK for foreign direct investment year after year, having a progressive taxation system, rewarding our public sector workers properly and investing in our communities. What difference does the Minister think agricultural property relief and business property relief will have on the Scottish economy—positive or negative?
Darren Jones
Of course, when we make changes to taxes, even when that it is difficult, that results in additional funding for the hon. Member and his colleagues to spend. I am sure he is grateful that we have given a record-breaking increase in investment to the Scottish Government.
Darren Jones
He may be grateful for nothing, and he may be agitating in his place. I suggest that he goes back to the people of Scotland and explains his party’s record in government.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
This Government, as the hon. Member will know, has already given £26 billion of additional funding to the national health service and additional funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for social care. We know that we have more to do. The Government are working hard on that and will set out further details in due course.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Darren Jones
Impacts on ODA budgets are currently under review by the Government. Our commitment is to prioritise legal obligations and minimise disruption. We will confirm details in due course, but I will happily meet my hon. Friend and colleagues to discuss this further.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Darren Jones
We have to decide whether we are for growth or against growth. This Government are for growth and we will set out further details of this particular project when the developers come forward with their plans for the Government to consider.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Darren Jones
To ensure that we protect the country from the devastating impacts of flooding, we have committed £2.65 billion over 2024-25 to 2025-26 to improve flood defences, and we have established a flood resilience taskforce to feed into our decisions on future spending, which will report in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Transport Committee has looked at the economic growth case for the Heathrow expansion and has heard conflicting evidence on the project’s growth impact on regions away from London and the south-east, and also on other carbon-using sectors. Will the Chancellor ask Heathrow Airport to release the full text of the Frontier Economics report on which she made her decision to expand Heathrow?
Darren Jones
Heathrow, as an important hub airport, will have benefits for regions across the country, as chambers of commerce have said to us. Of course, I understand that the Transport Committee is looking at the issue, and we will consider its report when it publishes it in due course.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
St Raph’s hospice in my constituency faces a £140,000 increase in staff costs due to the Government’s national insurance hike. That means the hospice will have to further cut staff services that take pressure off the NHS. Will the Chancellor think again and provide an exemption for healthcare providers from the national insurance rise?
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that investment in the fifty500 midlands growth corridor will provide an excellent opportunity to deliver this Labour Government’s mission for growth and opportunity for all?
Darren Jones
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating investment in her region. Our growth mission is one in which each part of the country will benefit, and we look forward to working further with her.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
With farmers protesting again in Westminster today, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer running away from meeting farming unions from across this nation? Why do those who feed our nation not deserve some of the Chancellor’s time?
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that the Government have put more money into defence. However, in answer to a previous question, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there is an impact assessment of the overseas development budget. Does that mean that it is still in scope of the spending review and that there could be changes to that budget in June?
Darren Jones
Just to clarify, I did not say there was an impact assessment; I said that the impact of the changes is being considered by the Government, but we will set out the detail on that in due course.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
I commend the Government for their international leadership at this challenging time. Events overnight make it even clearer that Europe must find considerably more resources for Ukraine. The Chancellor has rightly continued our policy of using the interest on frozen Russian state assets to benefit Ukraine, but I believe that now is the moment to go further by actually seizing those assets. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the principle of sovereign equality, providing a basis in international law for such a policy, and by acting in concert with our allies, we can ensure that there are no risks to financial stability. May I urge the Chancellor to push for co-ordinated action to seize those frozen Russian state assets and give that money to the Ukrainians so that they can defend and rebuild their country?
Public Service Pensions: Indexation and Revaluation 2025
Darren Jones Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Legislation governing public service pensions in payment requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 7 April 2025 by 1.7%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2024, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro rata increase. This will ensure that public service pensions take account of increases in the cost of living and their purchasing power is maintained. Scheme Police Fire- fighters Civil Service NHS Teachers LGPS Armed Forces Judicial Revaluation for active member 2.95% 4.5% 1.7% 3.2% 3.3% 1.7% 4.5% 1.7%
Separately, in the career average revalued earnings public service pension schemes introduced in 2014 and 2015, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.
The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 1.7% for the prices element of revaluation.
The earnings measure is the whole economy year-on-year change in average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 4.5% for the earnings element of revaluation.
The effective date of revaluation listed in the order is 1 April 2025, but some schemes have chosen to move their effective revaluation date to 6 April 2025 in order to manage interactions with the annual tax allowance.
Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:
[HCWS437]
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Darren Jones Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.
It feels like I was in the House only a few moments ago, but I am delighted to be back at the Dispatch Box for this important debate. Sustained economic growth, supported by sound investment, is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country, and, in so doing, the living standards of working people. Growth is the primary mission of this Government.
This debate is timely, as the House knows, given that the Chancellor gave her growth speech only this morning. In her speech, she reiterated that without a stable economy, we cannot hope to attract investment into the UK; that we cannot grow our economy with a black hole in our public finances; and, importantly, that fixing the foundations of the economy starts with the new fiscal rules, which we are voting on here today.
The Chancellor announced in her speech that we are taking difficult decisions in the long-term interests of the country, including, for example, on a third runway at Heathrow airport. As she set out, the Government support and are inviting proposals for a third runway at Heathrow to be brought forward by the summer. Once proposals have been received, we will take forward a full assessment through the airport national policy statement, to ensure that any scheme is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations. According to a recent study from Frontier Economics, a third runway could increase GDP by 4.3% over the next 25 years. It is estimated that over half—around 60%—of that boost would go to areas outside London and the south-east, underlining the fact that Heathrow as a hub airport brings prosperity not just to London but to every region and nation of the country.
The Government have also set out further plans to reform our planning system, to provide confidence to investors and builders, and to show that Britain can get building again and that we can deliver on our promises. Confidence starts with stability. Stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy, because it gives UK businesses and households the essential confidence that they need to spend and invest, encouraging innovation and boosting our economy. In outlining our new, robust and transparent fiscal framework, the charter for Budget responsibility that we are voting on today provides a vital and stable foundation from which our economy can grow.
What the instability of the last 14 years has given us is clear: low productivity, rising debt levels and declining public services performance. Public sector net debt is 97.2% of GDP, and net financial debt remains close to its highest recorded level as a share of GDP, which was reached in the pandemic. Per capita GDP remains 0.8% below pre-pandemic levels. In contrast, had the UK economy grown at the average rate of OECD economies over the past 14 years, it would be over £150 billion larger than it is today. Public investment in the UK has historically been low and inconsistent. Our public capital stock, as a share of GDP, is the joint lowest in the G7, and more than 10 percentage points below the G7 median.
Underneath all those challenges was a £22 billion black hole of in-year spending pressures that were not disclosed by the previous Government to Parliament, the public or the Office for Budget Responsibility—[Interruption.] My colleague the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), seems to have comments on the £22 billion black hole. I will happily take an intervention from him. [Interruption.] I am told that I cannot take an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very sad. But in that context, I look forward to the shadow Chief Secretary outlining in his speech how that £22 billion black hole came into being.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the record, the Minister can take an intervention if he wishes to. This reminds me of the many years all three of us spent on the Business and Trade Committee, when we could not agree on anything either.
Darren Jones
I was always enamoured of your arguments, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I continue to be today. I look forward to the prospect of many interventions from Members across the House as part of this important debate, and I encourage the shadow Chief Secretary to intervene.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm whether the OBR validated his £22 billion claim?
Darren Jones
The OBR was very clear, as Members will see in its publications in the House of Commons Library, that the spending plans announced by the previous Government were—to quote the chair of the OBR in his evidence to the Treasury Committee—a “fiction.” The OBR forecast provided to the Government made it clear that had the in-year spending pressure been reported transparently, the last forecast under the previous Administration would have been “materially different”. That shows that the lack of transparency on in-year spending was a secret held by only a few Ministers in the last Government, and neither the public, Parliament, we in opposition nor the OBR knew about that problem. That is why this Government have already legislated to bring forward additional strengthened powers for independent checks and balances and transparency, and we have committed to sharing in-year spending pressures with the Office for Budget Responsibility so that we never end up in a situation like the one we inherited.
The Chancellor’s autumn Budget put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there. Our commitment to sound public finances is non-negotiable. Our new charter for Budget responsibility, underpinned by the new fiscal rules, ensures a more transparent fiscal framework and provides a stable foundation for growth. Today I will outline the changes that we have made to the charter for Budget responsibility, as published in draft at the autumn Budget 2024 and laid before this House last week.
Fiscal rules are a key part of the UK fiscal framework. At the autumn Budget in 2024, the Chancellor confirmed the Government’s fiscal rules as set out in our manifesto, which will play a vital role in unlocking investment. These rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. They consist of two rules: the stability rule and the investment rule.
The stability rule aims to move the current Budget into balance so that day-to-day spending is met by revenues, meaning that the Government will borrow only for investment. We will meet this rule in 2029-30, until that becomes the third year of the forecast. From that point on, we will balance the current Budget in the third year of every Budget, held annually each autumn. This will provide a tougher constraint on day-to-day spending so that difficult decisions cannot be constantly delayed or deferred, as they were under the last Government.
I am sure the House would recommend that the Government should live within their means. That means that public services have to be able to live within their budgets, and it means that tax revenues have to pay for day-to-day spending. Never again will we end up in the position the country ended up in under the last Government, when every week and every month the country borrowed more and more in order to pay the day-to-day bills. That is why when hon. Members on the Opposition Benches complain about the debt burden this country is having to deal with, they should look in the mirror, because they built up that debt burden. The people responsible for filling up the country’s credit card just to pay the bills every month, even in advance of the pandemic, were Conservative Ministers. That will never happen under a Labour Government because of our clear fiscal rules. It is why for the first time in 17 years we are doing a zero-based review of all public spending, not once done under the last Administration but done in the first spending review of this Labour Government.
Secondly, our investment rule requires the Government to reduce net financial debt, defined as public sector net financial liabilities, as a share of the economy. Public sector net financial liabilities is an accredited official statistic, produced by the Office for National Statistics since 2016; based on international statistical guidance, it has been forecast by the OBR since that time. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted that the metric offers a
“more complete picture of the Government’s financial position, while removing some of the perverse incentives associated with a narrow focus on PSND”—
public sector net debt.
This rule keeps debt on a sustainable path while allowing the step change needed in investment by targeting a measure of debt that captures not just the debt that Government owe, but financial assets that are expected to generate future returns. By targeting net financial debt for the investment rule, the Government are prioritising investment to drive long-term growth while getting debt falling as a share of the economy.
The move to net financial debt will be supported by a comprehensive set of guardrails to give confidence that there are rules around the investments the country can make. Like our stability rule, our investment rule will apply in 2029-30 until that year becomes the third year of the forecast, and from that point onwards net financial debt will fall in the third year of every forecast.
The move to net financial debt means that at the autumn Budget the Government were in a position to confirm public investment that will be £100 billion higher over the forecast period compared to the previous Government’s plans. I am pleased to say that in its autumn forecast the OBR confirmed that the Government are on track to meet both fiscal rules two years early, in 2027-28, displaying the Government’s commitment to sound finances.
The Chancellor has asked the OBR to produce a forecast on 26 March, which will assess us against these rules once again. Our commitment to these fiscal rules is iron-clad. The UK has changed its fiscal rules in the past more than any other country, but this Government know that stability matters. That is why the new charter sets out clearer circumstances under which the fiscal rules can temporarily be suspended through a new strengthened escape clause. The new escape clause requires a decision on suspension be supported by the OBR’s analysis so that the rules can be suspended only with sufficient justification.
As well as new fiscal rules, the updated charter for budget responsibility includes a set of wider reforms that ensure a more stable and transparent fiscal framework. Because fiscal responsibility is so central to this Government’s mission, the first piece of legislation passed in this Parliament was the Budget Responsibility act 2024. It delivered our manifesto commitment to introduce a fiscal lock. I do not think Members on either side of the House need reminding of what happens when huge unfunded fiscal commitments are made without proper scrutiny and key economic institutions such as the OBR are sidelined. We will not let that happen again. The fiscal lock therefore guarantees in law that from now on every fiscally significant change to tax and spending will be subject to scrutiny by the independent OBR.
The charter sets out the details of how the fiscal lock will operate. As well as the new guiding fiscal principles to move towards only borrowing for investment and to keep debt on a sustainable path, the OBR will monitor progress against a dashboard of key debt sustainability metrics to ensure the Government are taking a broad view of fiscal sustainability. A broader view will allow the Government to form a full assessment of the sustainability of the public finances and support us in seeking to improve sustainability over time.
We are also enhancing fiscal and economic stability by confirming in the charter today that the Government’s intention to move to one major fiscal event per year will be honoured, giving families and businesses certainty on tax and spending plans, as will the requirement on the Treasury to conduct regular spending reviews every two years and setting spending for at least three years, ensuring public services have certainty on their funding and that spending decisions cannot again be repeatedly delayed. In addition, it guarantees a three-year rolling budget for the OBR, to support its independence. We are further strengthening fiscal transparency and accountability by accepting all the recommendations of the OBR review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits, including to improve the spending information the Treasury shares with the OBR.
The OBR is widely recognised as providing independent, credible and high-quality analysis. It is a guarantor of economic stability. Going forward, the Treasury will provide the OBR with information on the in-year position, allowing it to forecast underspending and overspending against departmental expenditure limits where appropriate. This will ensure the unfunded pressures identified at the public spending audit never happen again. We are a Government who will consider the impact of our current spending decisions on future generations, and to show how the long-term health of the public balance sheet is bolstered by sound investments, the charter requires the OBR to report on the long-term impact of capital investment and other policies at fiscal events.
Finally, I turn to the welfare cap, which we are also debating today. The Government are retaining the welfare cap within our fiscal framework to support our ambitions to keep welfare spending sustainable in the medium term. The OBR will assess whether the new cap has been met at the first fiscal event of the next Parliament. The latest OBR forecast judged the previous welfare cap to be breached by £8.6 billion, following a trend of forecast breaches by the previous Government. This is clearly an unsustainable path for welfare spending. This breach underlines the inheritance left by the previous Government: a failure to control welfare spending and to bring forward radical reform, and, crucially, a failure by the last Government to support people to get the treatment or skills they need to return to work.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In his assessment, what estimate has the Minister made of the increase in poverty and child poverty in our society and the effects of largely uncontrolled rents in the private rented sector, often well above the local housing allowance, which leads people into poverty?
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member knows that the Labour party takes child poverty seriously. That is why we launched the child poverty taskforce at the start of this Government, co-chaired by the Work and Pensions Secretary and the Education Secretary, to do a root and branch review of the long-term structural causes of child poverty and the interventions the Government could take to reverse those growing trends that none of us across the House wants to see. The taskforce will report in the coming months, but he is right to point out that housing costs and insecure housing have become ever more important drivers of child poverty in recent years. That is why, through the Renters’ Rights Bill introduced to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister, we are taking action in the private rented sector to provide additional protections and support for families in rental accommodation—for example, banning no-fault evictions and giving more security of tenure for people who are renting.
Like me, the right hon. Member will have had lots of casework where hard-working families, who are just trying to make ends meet and to provide security of income and a roof over their head for them and their families, are failed by a market in which house prices to buy and rent are out of reach and the rate at which we build affordable and social housing is not meeting the demand of the people who need it. That is why we increased funding at the Budget by half a billion pounds to build more affordable and social housing, which we know can be delivered quickly.
On a visit last week to Erewash, I visited social housing developments supported by Homes England and learned from the company building those homes for emh Homes, the east midlands housing association, that it takes only 14 to 16 weeks from laying the foundations through to giving the key to the person moving in. That reminds us why our reform agenda is so important, because the time involved in building—planning, consenting, infrastructure and financing deals—has been significantly holding back the rate of development of social and affordable housing across the country. Those are exactly the sorts of issues where Government have the ability to make a difference, which is why we are committed to accelerating our plans to build 1.5 million homes a year, but, crucially, to tilting that towards more affordable and social housing to support people across the country.
The Government are resetting the welfare cap, given that the previous one was repeatedly breached, and we are doing so based on the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That will set a new target for 2029-30, alongside our action to control welfare spending and to help people who deserve the assistance. The Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from doing what is needed to put welfare spending on a more sustainable path—for example, with different decisions such as targeting winter fuel payments to those who need them the most and reclaiming £4.3 billion of public money lost to fraud and error in the welfare system in 2029-30, and £9.2 billion over five years.
We have also announced steps to tackle inactivity through the “Get Britain Working” White Paper and will set out further proposals in the health and disability Green Paper later in spring. Progress against the cap will be monitored by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions. That will include a strengthened accountability framework and the DWP publishing an annual report on welfare spending. By strengthening the accountability of the welfare cap, getting more people into work and reforming the welfare system for long-term sustainability, we are taking the necessary steps to keep spending under control. But crucially, we are also serving the people of this country by ensuring that people who for too long have been at home unable to be seen in the NHS or to get access to mental health services, who have been unable to get the training or support they need to take advantage of the jobs available in our country, and who have been unable to find jobs near where they are, see hope in their futures and know they have a Government on their side who will support them to get back into work. That outcome is better for them, their family finances and their futures, but it also supports us in ensuring fiscal stability.
The reforms to the fiscal framework outlined in the new charter for Budget responsibility will ensure a more stable approach to tax and spend, as well as better transparency and accountability for our Government and future Governments. That stability is inseparable from our plans for growth. Alongside that growth, restoring stability means the Government can pay for increased funding to repair, reform and modernise our public services and to invest in the infrastructure needed to rebuild Britain. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To clear up any confusion, this is the debate and motion on the charter for Budget responsibility. The next motion and debate will be on the welfare cap. I call the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
As the Chancellor scours the nation turning over every stone in her desperate effort to mitigate the damage from her choices in last year’s Budget of broken promises, it falls to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to keep his face straight as he lectures the House on the importance of fiscal responsibility. He has shown the performative skills of one of the greats of the west end, but his mouthing of the words of economic stewardship, even as his audience of wealth creators get up out of their seats and leave the show, leaves few of us impressed. They know what the British public know: that this is a Treasury team and a Government who, day after day, create more problems and, day after day, demonstrate that they are clearly out of their depth.
Darren Jones
As the shadow Minister and, I hope, the House knows, I am a humble man and am always ears-open to advice, wisdom and feedback on how we can do things better. Given his opening remarks on fiscal stability, I wonder whether he has any reflections to offer the House from the time of his party being in government and, indeed, from his time in the Treasury under former Prime Minister Liz Truss about what went wrong and what we might do differently.
Richard Fuller
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like so many on the Labour Benches, loves to talk—almost fondly—about the former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Well, at least she knew her time was up after 50 days; we are stuck with the Chancellor for five years.
When it was noted a few months back that the entire Labour Cabinet could barely scrape together a year’s worth of business experience between them, it was thought to be just a curiosity. Little did we know it was an early warning sign of their lack of suitability for the task of managing the British economy: business confidence down, job losses up, consumer confidence in the gutter and Government debt spiralling further upwards—and they are just getting started.
There are, of course, potential benefits from the investments that are being announced today. We share a desire for a more competitive, less regulated economy based on a passion for free enterprise, but while Labour celebrates the exodus of millionaires from our country, we recognise that it represents a loss of skills, lower job creation, and the evaporation of potential future taxation to support public services. While Labour sees the attack on family farms and family businesses as a vital part of its warped class-war ideology, we recognise that putting family at the heart of enterprise is a critical piece of our nation’s proud heritage of freedom.
Richard Fuller
My friend, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on economics, makes a fair point about the impact of trade agreements on family finances. However, as she knows, that is very different from the pain that farmers are feeling right now about Labour’s attack on the ability of families to pass on their farm to their children—it is different in scale and in type. It is a damaging policy by the Labour party that we know, or at least hope, that Labour will change in due course.
I am sure that today, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is also engaged in a series of phone conversations with his departmental colleagues as, ahead of the March update on the OBR’s financial forecast, they review what it will mean for their departmental expenditures. As he has those difficult phone conversations, I say to the Chief Secretary that we stand ready to support effective steps on prudent financial responsibility.
Darren Jones
On the point of prudent financial responsibility—[Interruption.] I think the House is interested in a long and detailed debate this evening, so it is important that we dive into the details. On this issue of prudent fiscal responsibility, the hon. Gentleman presumably welcomes our fiscal rule that day-to-day costs will be met by revenues, as opposed to having to borrow money all the time to pay those day-to-day costs. That is something that consistently happened under the last Conservative Administration, which was a mistake in the context of fiscal responsibility, was it not?
Richard Fuller
I am aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is interested in a prolonged debate today—I am not sure whether that is because of the content of the debate, or for other reasons. I would say gently to him that writing rules is different from following rules, so he will be judged by this House on how he meets the rules that he has set. My purpose today is to cover some of those rules, and I will have some comments on them, but first, although we will be having a separate debate on the welfare cap, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made some points about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) will respond formally on that issue, so these are just my thoughts, really.
The welfare cap, of course, was introduced in 2014 by Conservative Chancellor George Osborne, who recognised the particular difficulties with forecasting and managing certain welfare budgets. At the 2014 Budget, he explained his rationale:
“Britain should always be proud of having a welfare system that helps those most in need, but never again should we allow its costs to spiral out of control and its incentives to become so distorted that it pays not to work. In future, any Government who want to spend more on benefits will have to be honest with the public about the costs, will need the approval of Parliament, and will be held to account by this permanent cap on welfare.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.]
George Osborne’s initiative has shown its value over the past decade, and it is right that the new Government are following its intent in principle and, one hopes, also in practice. Our task today is to listen to the explanations for the breaching of the welfare cap for fiscal year 2024-25 and the rationale for the particular limits that the Chief Secretary’s Government will set on the welfare cap for future fiscal years through 2029-30.
As the Chief Secretary said, in October, as part of the first Budget of the Parliament, the OBR provided its assessment of the status of welfare spending compared with the cap that was set in 2024. That assessment was an excess of £8.6 billion, which indicated a breach. With the country now spending over £156 billion on welfare every year and with the obvious pressures on public expenditure, there should be a determination to find savings in the welfare budget. Indeed, that was the intention of the Conservative party at the last election, with a commitment to reduce expenditure by £12 billion through better targeting of disability benefits, amending the levels of payments for those whose disabilities would not routinely be expected to lead to additional life expenses, overhauling the fit note process, and introducing tougher sanctions on those who shirk the opportunity to work and contribute to society.
But the Labour Government today appear to be set on a different course, with a pathway for the welfare cap that is up, not down, growing from this year’s cap of £137 billion to reach £195 billion by 2029-30. That is a 42% increase in the welfare cap. It is important to note that at the same point in the last Parliament, when the Conservative party set the rules on the welfare cap, that increase was limited to 15%.
Richard Fuller
That difference between 15% and 42% is important, is it not?
Darren Jones
It is important. I think we should reflect on what some of the drivers are behind the increased spend in the welfare budget, because the evidence is very clear. For people who can be—and indeed wish to be—economically active but are in receipt of universal credit support and other forms of payment, the main reasons are being unable to get access to the treatment they need in the health and mental health services space or being unable to access training opportunities for the jobs that are available in the market. Without diving too much into the weeds, that is the issue about the difference between the approach to austerity in day-to-day resource spending—where we cut spending to frontline public services—and annually managed expenditure.
Richard Fuller
That is all very well, but the Chief Secretary is talking about the wrong budget. He is talking about increases to the health budget or changes to aspects of the DWP budget; he is not talking about why this Government are allowing an increase of up to 42% in welfare payments in this country. That is a different issue. It shows laxity on the part of the Government. Serious questions need to be asked, and I am sure will be asked, in the next debate.
Let me return to the charter for budget responsibility, which was established by former Chancellor George Osborne as part of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. On Second Reading, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury explained why the measure was necessary:
“We inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history, we inherited a budget deficit forecast to be the largest in the G20, and we inherited the largest structural deficit in the whole of Europe.”—[Official Report, 14 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 746.]
She did not have to make up numbers, as this Government have done, about some fanciful black hole; these were facts, and my former colleague, Justine Greening, was telling the truth to the nation.
Indeed, truth is the foundation upon which any charter for budget responsibility is based. Let me be clear: when the Chancellor said on 13 November 2023 that she was
“not going to fiddle the figures or make something to get different results”,
the fiscal rules included in this charter demonstrate that she was not telling the truth. In this charter, the Chancellor has changed the rules on the measurement of debt from public sector net debt, or PSND, excluding the Bank of England, to public sector net financial liabilities, or PSNFL. This fiddling of the figures opened the taps for the Chancellor to borrow more, even while our debt to GDP ratio stands at historically high levels following the pandemic and the Ukraine war.
The Guardian newspaper, which I am sure the Chief Secretary reads avidly, reported on 24 October 2024 that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), the former Conservative Chancellor, had acted similarly to the current Chancellor, his fiscal headroom would have ballooned from £9 billion to £49 billion, but he knew better than the current Chancellor.
The Chancellor has even had to create her own name for things, just so that she can claim she is getting debt falling. She said in her Budget statement that she will call PSNFL
“net financial debt, for short.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 823.]
The reality is that the proper measure of Government debt, as per the previous fiscal rules, is rising in every single year of the forecast. The OBR has confirmed that on the previous definition, which she had said she would keep to, the fiscal rules are being broken. At the last election, Labour said it would get debt falling, and the Government continue to claim that they are delivering that. They are doing nothing of the sort. Let us be very clear: debt is rising, and it is forecast to continue to rise. We will be spending nearly £50 billion more on debt interest over the next five years as a result of their first Budget alone.
There are also concerns about the rolling three-year targets for the rule that the current Budget should be in surplus and the rule that debt—the Government’s dubious definition of debt—should be falling as a share of the economy. Like the water and fruit for Tantalus, the rules permit these reasonable targets to remain just out of reach every time—they are always there but never met. To extend my similes, the charter rules are to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary as St Augustine regarded self-control: “Grant me chastity and self-control, but not yet.”
The charter begins on shakier ground with a weaker Treasury team, but it remains an important part of our country’s fiscal framework. Under the rules of the House, the motion is not amendable, so we shall not oppose the measure. We do need fiscal rules, but we condemn the Government’s approach of fiddling the figures to add more borrowing. They promised that they would not, but, as so many times before, they have broken their promises once again.
Darren Jones
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for this afternoon’s debate. I will reflect on some of their questions and comments in winding up the debate.
To begin, I can provide assurance to the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He was concerned that the Labour party had misled the public. There could not be anything further from the truth. In the manifesto, the wording was very clear. We would have two fiscal rules: first, to bring day-to-day spending in line with receipts; and secondly, that debt would fall as a share of the economy. Those are our fiscal rules. Now, he is right that we defined debt at the Budget, but that did not change the fiscal rule. The fiscal rule is that debt should be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. [Interruption.] It is the fiscal rule; there is no debate about it. It is as clear as the letters on a page. As was alluded to in the debate, the Chancellor chose a well-established metric for debt—PSNFL, public sector net financial liabilities—which recognises the fact that a competent Government can invest in the country and get a return for the taxpayer.
Richard Fuller
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is making a bizarre comment. The point is that the Chancellor stated in 2023 that she would not fiddle the figures. She has now changed the numbers. The definition of debt for public sector net debt excluding the Bank of England is different from her PSNFL. They are different. It enables the Chancellor to borrow more. That is fiddling the figures to achieve an objective. It is not the same, and she did not tell the truth when she said that she would not fiddle the figures.
Darren Jones
That is a very strong accusation, which I refute in the strongest terms. The Chancellor was very clear that debt would be falling as a share of the economy. That is the fiscal rule. As predicted by the OBR, we will deliver on that promise. It is right that the Chancellor chose at the Budget to define debt as public sector net financial liabilities. The big question is why. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said, it is because having a Government with stability and competence at their core means that we are borrowing not to pay for out of control day-to-day spending, which I think everyone in the House would agree is an unsustainable path to higher debt burdens, but instead borrowing responsibly within guard rails for investments, predominantly alongside the private sector, to enable, for example, infrastructure delivery across the country or investment in businesses, for example, through the national wealth fund.
The reason that the public sector net financial liabilities debt rule is important in that context is because it reflects the fact that, where Government have an equity stake or have provided debt for non-commercial terms, there is a rate of return. The taxpayer receives some of the benefit of that investment and growth in the economy, which I am sure we would all welcome. There is the important difference about the type of debt. Under the last Administration, debt was spiralling out of control because the last Government could not pay their day-to-day bills. Everybody knows, whether they are running their household finances or the country’s finances, that that is not a sustainable thing to do.
That has changed under this Government. Debt will be for productive investment only and day-to-day costs will be met by revenues. Yes, that means that public services have to live within their means, and often that means difficult discussions in the spending review that I have to conduct with Secretaries of State, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. However, all of us around the Cabinet table recognise not only the non-negotiable nature of the fiscal rules, which are the foundation of economic stability, but the prize of the modernisation and reform of our public services. He will have heard the Prime Minister and other Secretaries of State talk about just that fact. There is a huge amount of opportunity to achieve better outcomes for people at lower cost, not just through basic technology but by improving the way we deliver public services. That means delivering services designed around the person and how they wish to interact with the Government. It means that people can receive support from different Departments and different functions, and they can receive the information they need at the time they need it.
Let me give one example. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—just north of my Bristol North West constituency—I visited a community diagnostic centre. The CDC programme began under the last Administration, but we have committed ourselves to it. The provider works in partnership with the NHS trust, charging exactly the same rate as the hospital for a diagnostic scan. The company involved does not make profits in comparison with the hospital costs; it is the same NHS tariff rate. People can have MRI and CT scans, gastroscopies, and other tests. The centre is attached to a branch of Asda and there is plenty of free parking.
I asked the owners, “Why are you able to charge the same rates as the hospital in my constituency while running this service more effectively?” They said, “We are open for 14 hours a day from Monday to Saturday and for 12 hours on Sunday, we sweat the assets more than a hospital can, and we have new bits of kit with AI that are more productive to use”—which is why the Health Secretary wants to roll those out across the NHS. They also said that the customer service was the key driver for productivity, because customers could book their appointments and move them if necessary, they could visit the centre after work, and they could go there between shopping trips. Essentially, the service has been designed around the patient. Patients turn up pretty much all the time, and they are never not able to do so. That is just one example of the way we are modernising public services.
Daisy Cooper
The Chief Secretary has given a fantastic example of how improving capital infrastructure in the NHS can improve productivity, but one of the big frustrations in the NHS is the fact that staff cannot be productive because the buildings around them are falling apart. I have seen that in Watford General hospital, where A&E staff cannot be as productive as they might be because they are in a crumbling, cramped hospital. Has the Treasury considered conducting any assessment of the productivity gains that could be produced by the new hospital programme, and by potentially speeding up the delivery of those hospitals?
Darren Jones
The Health Secretary is actively working on this. There are huge opportunities, not just in the NHS but in the Department for Work and Pensions where my right hon. and hon. Friends are working, and throughout Government as a whole. Imagine having a jobcentre in your pocket, on your phone, where you can gain access to the support that you need—as opposed to services that are often out of town or not available when you are available, and where there are difficult processes to go through. That is not great for the people who work in those services. They are there to serve the public, but they are not helped to achieve the right outcomes for people.
This Government are committed to reform but also to investment, because we can achieve better outcomes for people and reduce the cost of running public services in the long run. We are committed to unlocking investment, whether it is through the PSNFL debt definition for infrastructure and businesses or, as a consequence, freeing up public sector grants for public sector investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) made a number of excellent points. I am pleased that he is supportive of the commitments made by the Chancellor today to back the Heathrow plans and the enormous opportunity presented by the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. He gave the great example of his local technology and telecoms cluster and its development around rail infrastructure, including extra capacity on the Elizabeth line. It is a classic and probably obvious example: if rail and other transport infrastructure is built, people will come and invest in lab spaces, offices and homes. That is why the Chancellor made such a strong commitment today to get infrastructure built and enable private sector investment.
My hon. Friend also made a good point about the role of universities. Our universities sector is one of our great strengths. We have a number of world-leading universities, as well as the brilliant universities that are teaching and carrying out research in every part of our country. These are often the engines of economic growth in their regions, and also the gateway to opportunity for many people.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Chief Secretary has referred to the great benefit of infrastructure projects. The Elizabeth line is a very good example of that, but it was way over budget and very late, and the same applies to HS2 and most other big infrastructure projects. What plans do the Government have in that regard? Later we will discuss the welfare cap, an attempt to control welfare spending for the next five years. Does the same cap apply to infrastructure projects?
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, because he invites me to talk the House through our infrastructure strategy. For the first time, we are bringing together Government plans on economic infrastructure, housing and social infrastructure in the same place. It means that when we go through the spending review in the Treasury, working with colleagues across Whitehall, we will be much better than the previous Government at taking place-based decisions. In the past, it was a bilateral discussion between a Department and the Treasury, with no dots being connected between different types of infrastructure. That has led to the failure to capture the growth potential in different places.
We will take a different approach and make sure that infrastructure investments relating to public investment are capped by the numbers set out in the Budget. That is the spending envelope that we have, and we have to prioritise those investments, but they will be based on driving growth and opportunity for people in the places in which they live.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central made a great point about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, the role of connecting some of our great universities, and unleashing the opportunity that exists between them. As I said to the House earlier, the living connectivity arrangements between Oxford and Cambridge are basically non-existent. By connecting these two hubs of innovation and investment, the opportunities are endless.
Richard Fuller
I have to be careful, because I have a significant constituency interest in this issue, but I want to ask a more general question about the role of infrastructure investments and the fiscal rules. East West Rail’s proposal to complete the railway line had a benefit-cost ratio of 0.3 in its last business case: building it would basically lose 70p of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury regard that as a loss? If not, will there be a business case that shows that the project has a benefit-cost ratio that does not lose taxpayers’ money?
Darren Jones
That is a great question. All these infrastructure opportunities will go through both value-for-money assessments and growth assessments. The argument that we have been making today is that initiating projects such as the East West Rail line in a co-ordinated way with private capital, universities and our house building plans lifts the growth opportunities that come from those projects. That is why Patrick Vallance has been appointed as the champion of the growth corridor. We will take a whole-corridor view on the investments and the opportunities across different investments, regardless of whether they are public or private, but they will all have to go through value-for-money and growth assessments.
The infrastructure strategy will be a 10-year strategy. It will give a long-term view on economic, housing and social infrastructure, but they will be underpinned by longer-term capital budgets. The capital budget that we will set in June will be for four years, until 2029-30, but the normal approach, as set out in the charter, will be that the capital budgets will be for five years. As the House knows, we have committed to doing the next spending review every subsequent two years. In 2027, when we conduct the next spending review, we will have the 10-year infrastructure strategy but also pretty much 10 years of capital budgets being allocated for those projects. That is a hugely important signal to investors.
We are working with industry and investors on what the biannual pipeline might look like, so that we can publish in real terms the investable propositions, but also so that businesses know that work is coming if they invest in their supply chain or their workforce. That is a crucial part of unlocking investment in skills and training in our country. Much like we have just seen in the water industry, which has agreed a longer-term investment settlement, suppliers are already telling us that they are now able to invest in staff, training and capabilities, because they know that the flow of investment will be coming over a period of time. We are seeking to do that across a range of infrastructure in order to unlock the investment that this country needs.
Matt Rodda
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend some further questions on the points he is making. The Elizabeth line demonstrates the case that he is making for the importance of place-based investment and the way in which houses, flats and businesses have been built near stations. There has been a combination of public and private investment in the project, which is arguably part of its success. So I welcome the points he is making about the longevity of the infrastructure investment, the role of the joint investment or co-ordinated investment with the private sector and, above all, the place-based nature of this. The role of Patrick Vallance, in particular, is an important one in that corridor. I would also urge my right hon. Friend again to look at the far ends of the corridor, both at the Oxfordshire and Berkshire end and also possibly towards Norwich and further into East Anglia. I know that a former Minister in the previous Government has been highlighting the potential benefits of investment along rail in East Anglia.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He reminds me that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked me about broader reform to ensure that infrastructure is delivered differently from how it has been in the past, and I would point the House to the action that Ministers have already taken to call in projects that have been gummed up in the system for a long time, which we have allowed to take place, and also to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that will be presented to the House in due course, which will show the level of ambition this Government have for streamlining planning and consenting processes so that we can get things built. As I have already mentioned, I think today in the House, the fact that we can build a house for someone in 14 to 16 weeks but it seems to take years to get planning approved shows the size of the prize for delivering for people across the country.
I will end by thanking the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans, for her comments and for reminding the House why this debate matters and why the fiscal rules matter. Because, as we saw under the last Administration, this is not an obscure debate here in the House of Commons, or a kind of Whitehall guidance debate; this is important to people’s lives, because when Governments lose control of the economy nationally, it hits family finances.
We all know from talking to our constituents how stressful it was when the Conservative party lost control of the economy and when inflation went through the roof. It had a direct impact on people’s mortgages and on their ability to buy a house. So many people lost their mortgage offers overnight because of the actions of the last Government. It also affected people in the private rented sector when their landlords increased the rent, and because no-fault evictions were allowed under the last Government, many people lost their homes. This fundamental insecurity in people’s lives stems from the actions of politicians here in Government.
That is why the fiscal rules are so important and why the Chancellor—and indeed the whole Government—are so iron-clad in their commitment to them. That is why the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. [Interruption.] Shadow Ministers on the Conservative Benches laugh, but I would encourage them to meet some of our constituents and to explain why their actions led to such hardship for them. I have not even started to talk about the cost of energy bills or the food inflation that we are still struggling with today, directly as a consequence of the mismanagement of the economy under the last Administration. The sooner the Conservatives—should they wish to receive advice from me—apologise for the consequences of their actions, the sooner the public might start to listen to them again.
But while they are listening to this Labour Government, I can reassure hon. and right hon. Members in the House today that the fiscal rules are non-negotiable. They are the bedrock of economic stability. They enable us to invest in our public services in a sustainable way, to secure growth in the economy and, ultimately, as set out in the Prime Minister’s plan for change, to deliver for working people so that they will know in the years ahead that life is better under a Labour Government than it is under a Conservative Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2024, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.